How does one come to believe something?

[lumberjohn]

Utterly false... there is actual significant reliable historical sources outside of the bible that make it crystal clear that no serious academician questions that he in fact lived.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I am DEEPLY and WELL versed in this topic. Sources from Pliner the Younger, Tacitus, Lucian, The Babylonian Talmud, Josephus....

This is probably pointless, because as I've indicated I think it is more probable than not that a historical Jesus existed, but you are placing way more confidence in this proposition than is merited. None of the sources you cite are contemporaneous and none give any detail of Jesus' life. They simply report hearsay long after the fact. The closest in time is Josephus, but the relevant passage is regarded by the vast majority of critical scholars as, at least in part, a interpolation probably inserted by Eusebius.

Arguably the single most powerful piece of evidence is Rome itself. Rome conquered Israel in 63 BC Jerusalem was the outer backwaters of the empire held no cultural significance, no great wealth or import as it pertained to Rome... yet for inexplicable reasons within 200 years of Messiah's death Rome was quickly being converted to Christianity. Why would Rome a pagan empire whose religions were pantheistic in nature suddenly and inexplicably convert to a sect of Judaism?

There is absolutely no evidence that within 200 years, Rome was quickly being converted to Christianity. Instead, the evidence indicates that Rome remained overwhelmly pagan until the conversion of Constantine, after which Christianity gained official recognition and support. With the support of the Roman empire behind it, Christianity was ultimately forced upon the populace. Other religions were persecuted into extinction.

No, the supposition that Yeshua didn't live is so illogical that it defies any semblance of logical analysis to come to such an absurd conclusion.

See the works of critical scholars such as Robert Price, Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier. You might disagree with their conclusions, but I don't think you can rightly call them "absurd" or "illogical."

Finally there is the Apostles themselves. It is not difficult to find those who will die for a cause that they believe to be true but is false. You WILL NOT FIND a group of men who will die for a cause that they KNOW to be false... one perhaps if he is nuts, possibly two.... but 12? Never.

We have no good evidence that any apostle died because they failed to renounce a belief in Jesus or the resurrection.

As I have said, anyone who opens this topic with an HONEST search who is willing to let the facts led where it takes them quickly comes to the conclusion that the evidence is overwhelming... Yeshua was was the Son of Gd....Was killed on a tree (cross) for the Sin of all mankind, died and was PHYSICALLY resurrected from the dead.

Well, now you are calling me dishonest. I take exception to that. I didn't call you names.

 

[lumberjohn]

You don't understand the concept of free will, got it.

Gd is DEEPLY grieved at the blood that is shed of the innocent. Gd granted to man a free will. Choose Gd or reject Him.... when mankind rejected Gd and chose his own way he was given over to his nature. Man has both the inclination to do good and the inclination to do evil.

You realize that you are doing the same thing that Adam did when Adonai confronted Adam and Eve for disobeying Gd? Genesis 3:
10 He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” 11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.


Adam blamed Gd in that the woman Gd gave him caused him to sin...

You do the same when you try and blame Gd for suffering children. Tell me WHO is causing the suffering? Man or Gd??

IT IS MAN not Gd who is to blame.

You speak as if MAN was a single organism rather than billions of individuals that think and make decisions on their own. The idea that people can be punished for the acts of their ancestors is abhorant to all modern systems of justice. So you are saying that it is the fault of two people that lived 6,000 years ago (This would of course presume an actual Adam and Eve, common ancestors to the entire human race – something that would contradict everything science and archeology have revealed about human origins) that children today suffer rather than the divine being who either causes it or allows it to happen? I guess I don't have it after all.

 

[lumberjohn]

Isn't that for you to conclude? All we can do is point. It is your and journey to seek. I would say others are here to help point you in the right direction but some people just cannot deal with blind faith and must make their own mistakes and deal with their own pain to find the answers. The Case for a Creator, a Book by author Lee Strobel is a great place for an atheist to start considering Lee Strobel was one and spent years as a journalist seeking the truth.

You have simply avoided my question. What justifies believing in the Christian God as a "starting point?"

 

[jimbohank]

God either directs the suffering or allows it to happen. If you are all powerful, you get what you want.


Yes.



None.



Um, what? Please show your work.

This is in response to all of the above...An all loving God cannot truly love unless those He love are given a choice to love Him back. Would it be true love to tie your child to a post and make it love you? How would you know even if the child said yes that the child is sincere? God didn't create robots. in fact even the angels were given a choice because God does not make anyone love Him. Once that choice was made by Adam and Eve, regardless of their intent on eating what God asked them not to eat, they still made a choice to not trust God and what He told them. But He did not forsake them but punished them just as a parent would punish their child. But there seems to be confusion about why they/we must live in a fallen world. I would say this based on God's Word, that God desires to be with us, physically but cannot because He is Holy. It isn't to protect Him from us but to protect us from Him since just His physical presence would instantly kill us due to our sin. Thus why He planted His seed in Mary and walked a perfect path through His eternal son Jesus Christ, that we may now have an open door of communion with Him though Him. At this point I must leave the debate noticing that you, my brother, are blind as a bat. I will pray for you!

 

[lumberjohn]

This is in response to all of the above...An all loving God cannot truly love unless those He love are given a choice to love Him back. Would it be true love to tie your child to a post and make it love you? How would you know even if the child said yes that the child is sincere? God didn't create robots. in fact even the angels were given a choice because God does not make anyone love Him. Once that choice was made by Adam and Eve, regardless of their intent on eating what God asked them not to eat, they still made a choice to not trust God and what He told them. But He did not forsake them but punished them just as a parent would punish their child. But there seems to be confusion about why they/we must live in a fallen world. I would say this based on God's Word, that God desires to be with us, physically but cannot because He is Holy. It isn't to protect Him from us but to protect us from Him since just His physical presence would instantly kill us due to our sin. Thus why He planted His seed in Mary and walked a perfect path through His eternal son Jesus Christ, that we may now have an open door of communion with Him though Him. At this point I must leave the debate noticing that you, my brother, are blind as a bat. I will pray for you!

How can my child love me if he doesn't even know I exist? A loving God would, first and foremost, provide clear direct evidence of his existence that no one could dispute. This would in no way compromise anyone's free will. As for punishing Adam and Eve as a parent punishes a child, I have a child. If my child disobeys me, I correct them in the hope they will learn and do better next time. I don't banish them from my home, cut off all direct contact, and curse them and their descendants with pain and death to the end of time. That seems a little extreme. If God is all powerful and wants to be with us, why can't he? After all, he can be with the angels. Apparently, this omnipotence thing has some serious limits. I would call them special pleading.

You've outlined the Biblical view of salvation, which I would summarize as follows: God sacrificed himself to himself to set aside a curse he imposed and prevent himself from punishing mankind for the disobedience of an ancient ancestor, which he orchestrated, according to rules he set for himself and which requires a payment by all (belief and adoration) that some cannot give (as discussed on a previous thread, belief is not a voluntary act). Someone is indeed blind here, but I don't think it's me.

 

[Wayne R.]

So you understand that your argument was a fallacy?

Not hardly! I flip your comment back at you. The whole point is "ignorance".

 

[Wayne R.]

I've known to be surrounded by the presence of God from my earliest memories. No one taught me that.
He called me to know Him. He doesn't do that to many folk. I am overwhelmed continually and thank Him for His Grace in giving me to know Him more and more. His presence is incredible. Awesome. Jesus Christ Lives in me, His Resurrected Holy Spirit Lives in my thoughts words and deeds now. He is my Life.
I learned much of that subsequently of course from scriptures. But He's always been with me. He's my Everything. My Life. I've always known that Thank you Jesus

There is proof the atheist will never see, a reality they are starved of and therefore have no "evidence" of. The atheist never will. Not that it's not available, but no one can possibly remain an atheist when exposed to it. I know exactly what you're talking about, it's been 34 years for me.

 

[Wayne R.]

The argument cannot be made sound because it relies on human intellect and reasoning. People who are Christians believe that God exists by revelation. Evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs are all actions of the flesh and no one will be saved by the works of the flesh. John 16 tells us that conviction is a work of the Spirit, not a work of reason. Look around this forum and see. How many have been convinced to believe by debate and reason?

I can agree to a point, revelation is certainly key, yet for those who are not controlled by antitheist bias it's hard to miss the fact that logic will lead you at least to the possibility, if not the probability, intelligence was involved in the creation of this universe. "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.'" The problem with antitheism is it's not interested in truth, or evidence, only in promoting it's own delusion, one that has proven to fail at every turn. They prove scripture true. Prov 18:2 "A fool has no interest in understanding a matter, he'd rather just express his own opinion." LOL.

 

[Joshua260]

I still think you do not understand...

I totally understand. But I said that we can probably group some into categories we already have.

1) Intuition- These are starting points that people often base their intial starting points off of. Sometimes, people actually use them for the basis of their belief, whether they know it or not. Several even argue that intuition has an important role in rationally justified beliefs.

This could be grouped in with properly basic beliefs.

2) The Answer of Others- The fact that other people, particular people who are well trained and intelligent, might give the same answer or a different one factors into one's belief. I am actually studying the epistemology, ethics, and politics of peer disagreement right now.

Testimony (evidence).

3) Psychological and cognitive biases. These happen to everyone, which is why special care must be taken to ensure we do not easily fall into them. However, many times these can become so strong that they account for the reason why people hold onto a certain belief while others do not.

This has to do with how one processes evidence.

 

[Joshua260]

I´d be interested to learn what exactly you mean by "evaluating emotions". How is this done?

You misunderstood.
1. evaluating evidence
2. logical arguments
3. emotions
4. properly basic beliefs

 

[BukiRob]

So what justifies using belief in the Christian God as the "starting point"? Why not belief in the gods of the Hindus or the Romans or that cult that popped up last week in Peoria? Or, better yet, why not take a neutral position, waiting until the evidence supporting each can be evaluated? This is what atheists do. You haven't made a compelling argument for a different approach.

As far as I can see, your reasons are entirely prudential. But unless you have a personal genie at your disposal, reality does not conform to your wishes or desires.

Why do you assume that those who are seeking answers to questions science can not answer haven't examined other religious view points?

I know I have and found those that I have looked at to be either ridiculous or just flatly fantasy.

The following is but a partial list of great scientists who had a firm, deep belief in G-d the creator

Max Plank Noble Prize Physic
Wernier Heisenberg Noble Prize Physic
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics

There are many, many more.... The idea that one must abandon reason to believe in G-d and specifically Christ is a poorly conceived lie.

There are 30 Nobel Laureates just in the field of Physics that profess a strong belief in G-d

I would venture to say that no one posting on this message board posses either the intellect and certainly not the accomplishment in science that these men have

 

[Davian]

There is proof the atheist will never see, a reality they are starved of and therefore have no "evidence" of. The atheist never will. Not that it's not available, but no one can possibly remain an atheist when exposed to it. I know exactly what you're talking about, it's been 34 years for me.

If an atheist were to imagine that a god existed, then they would not be an atheist anymore. Axiomatic, that way. That does not establish that gods actually exist, or are even possible.

 

[Wayne R.]

Why is it that frustration of atheists with God has to automatically go to the idea of suffering children? Those children have already inherited the kingdom of God yet you don't seem to mention those of us that are not children any more but stumbling about, lost and swimming in the filth of the world we desire. Do you honestly think an almighty all loving God wants anyone or any thing to suffer? "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) We are responsible for all of that suffering, not Him. Here is a question for you, if man were to never interfere with nature, would we need to be concerned about things that would cause people to suffer? How many deadly bacteria, viruses, diseases are the direct result of man's ignorance and rebellion? How about ALL. It is easy to be lazy and not take ownership of our own filth and then blame God and then in the next breath to hypocritically say we don't even believe in Him. What is ironic is that we debate these things but yet we don't even pursue the idea of His existence let alone try to recognize the things around us that prove His glory every day. Very sad.

Isn't it ironic that the antitheists, who do not understand scripture by the way, love to pull the "suffering children" card yet hate the fact Christians oppose abortion?

 

[Wayne R.]

If an atheist were to imagine that a god existed, then they would not be an atheist anymore. Axiomatic, that way. That does not establish that gods actually exist, or are even possible.

"then they would not be an atheist anymore." That's want I said.
"That does not establish that gods actually exist..", you're very confused. Read it again.

 

[lumberjohn]

Why do you assume that those who are seeking answers to questions science can not answer haven't examined other religious view points?

I've made no such assumption. My question was directed to the poster's presuppositional belief in the Christian God before examining evidence. I was simply asking what justifies this particular presuppositional belief rather than others. The fact that the belief is held before evidence is considered negates the possibility that other religious viewpoints could have been considred first. It does not negate the subsequent examination of other religious viewpoints, but by then, of course, the proverbial die is cast.

I know I have and found those that I have looked at to be either ridiculous or just flatly fantasy.

You don't find talking snakes, asses and bushes ridicuolous or fantastical? Or children born to virgins who walk on water and turn water to wine? What about a being sacrificing himself to himself to lift a curse he himself placed on all mankind? Every religion sounds absurd to those outside it.

The following is but a partial list of great scientists who had a firm, deep belief in G-d the creator

Max Plank Noble Prize Physic
Wernier Heisenberg Noble Prize Physic
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics

There are many, many more....

I'm sure there are. I can give you an equally distinguished list of atheist scientists. This proves absolutely nothing.

The idea that one must abandon reason to believe in G-d and specifically Christ is a poorly conceived lie.

I haven't made that claim. Enjoy fighting it out with your strawman.

 

[lumberjohn]

Isn't it ironic that the antitheists, who do not understand scripture by the way, love to pull the "suffering children" card yet hate the fact Christians oppose abortion?

I don't hate the fact that some Christians oppose abortion, though I am a bit puzzled as to what scriptural authority they rely on to do so.

 

[Wayne R.]

Virtually all critical biblical scholars recognize that these Old Testament prophecies originally were never intended by their authors to refer to Jesus. They were pulled way out of context by early Christians looking for anything in the Old Testament to hang their hats on. Why is it that virtually no Jewish scholars, who are the most familiar with their scriptures, believe these were messianic prophecies?

You must have a PhD in Bovine Scatology to attempt to pull that one off. Jews missed it for the same reason you did, they didn't pay attention, that is, excluding the Messianic Jews who know you're wrong. The very day of His appearing was prophesied. No way were they not about Jesus.

 

[Wayne R.]

I don't hate the fact that some Christians oppose abortion, though I am a bit puzzled as to what scriptural authority they rely on to do so.

There's a great deal of lack in understanding of scripture among atheists, both in content and context (not that there isn't among many theists as well), which is why they have no real idea what we believe or why. Most prefer to tell us what we believe.

 

[Davian]

"then they would not be an atheist anymore." That's want I said.
"That does not establish that gods actually exist..", you're very confused. Read it again.

I read it again. If I imagine that unidentified flying objects are actually extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, it does not establish that as reality, or as a possibility. How does that not compare to your statement?

 

[Davian]

There's a great deal of lack in understanding of scripture among atheists, both in content and context (not that there isn't among many theists as well), which is why they have no real idea what we believe or why. Most prefer to tell us what we believe.

I do not claim to know what you believe in, but if you cannot, in some way, demonstrate that it is more than something you have simply imagined, what else am I to conclude?